Case 2301177/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Stein v Remus Corporation UK Limited (in compulsory liquidation) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2301177/2021
- Decision date
- 5 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Stein
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 25 March 2021. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Wright determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £18,054 net. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £36,272 net in damages.
The tribunal further ordered payment of £4,155 for failed contributions to the claimant’s pension fund and £2,010 net for unpaid holiday entitlement. The total award was £60,491.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £18,054 net. | Upheld | — | £18,054 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £36,272 net damages. | Upheld | — | £36,272 |
| Other | The tribunal ordered £4,155 for failed pension fund contributions; no separate claim type is specified in the judgment. | Upheld | — | £4,155 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay holiday entitlement and ordered £2,010 net. | Upheld | — | £2,010 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £60,491
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.